What a cop out. The above quote in Leviticus 20:13, sets the law from God. Arguing that it isn't against the law of USA doesn't mean anything to the "kingdom of God". You could argue that in some African country it is legal to rape and kill, and hence "we're fine there", Next.

Here one must practice killing their father for it to be a sin. If you only do it once then it isn't a sin because you only killed your father once. About "what came naturally": The argument here is that homosexuality isn't normal. The argument goes along the lines of a male is designed for a female. and the union there of is a symbol of the relationship of God to Jews and Jesus to Gentiles. Because some closed closet homos decided to rewrite verse to make homos not listed there, doesn't subtract to what was written.

I call BS on that. There isn't Male, Female, Gay, Les, there are only Male & Female. For a gay man it's still an unnatural act even if he prefers & love doing it.

BTW, As a Christian, I love the gay man but I dont want him to butt fuck me. (Love the man, not the sin) I am very surprise you can quote all these passages yet fail to understand that a gay man isn't a natural thing. You really want to have gay as some natural 3rd choice from Male & Female. and that desire it corrupting your interpretation of the verses. I just thought I should provide an counter argument to your views and (IMO poor) arguments.

It's a simple word to number conversion, it's not like scrabble where z=10, u =1, q=4.
Yes you could debate if this is just all made up but the fact is it is still there adding up.

But you could argue the Genesis PI value is a magic formula.
If you dont know about it, It's a formula for the first verse is something like this from my memory:
(sum of letters * product of letters) / (sum of words * sum of words).

With that you get the value of 3.141 * 10 ^ 70. to my memory, (that is 10 to the power of 70).

Well a valid reply would be that is just a made up formula that very remarkably reaches a value that is recognisable, and you would be right in saying that, but...
If you do that same formula to the New Testament's main creation verse you get 2.7182 x 10 ^ 30.
E wasn't discovered until the 16th century, so it's interesting that encoded in the text that a fisherman written are these advance mathematical constants of the universe in them.

Well feel free to dismiss these observations, as you shouldn't apply theology on them, they are only what Christians say are: signatures of the spirit.
There must be other locations this simple code is used but I haven't looked into these types of codes enough.

Actually Natural Selection was known before Charles Darwin even took his voyage.

The publication of his Origin of Species was in 1859, 20 years later. So Natural Selection is a creationist theory.
I am sure that will make some of you through up in your own mouths. :-)

I see two counter argument points here.
1 - The unborn child are people that will be men & women themselfs. Just because they are unborn doesn't make them not people. (Unless you want to get to the argument of unhuman people are like blacks, asians, jews, 99%ers etc... there not real people so have no rights. )

2 - Scale of "right". Should I be denied life because it's an inconvenience to someone else? How about if someone was holding you hostage for a quarter?
why should I pay quarter of my money to save your live?
In that argument the woman/girl is being greatly inconvenience for 9 months wither or not it's her own fault doesn't matter, the other human is being deprived their right to live.

So how dare those "religious fanatics" are fighting to preserve the right to life (even to you once maybe?) just because it annoys your mother.

So tell me, what is worth more? Your life or you mother being inconvenience for 9 months.

The first chapter gives the order in creation, the second chapter doesn't give an order hence the two do not conflict. It's like me making my bed at 8am then making my breakfast at 9 am. then I rang my mum and said I made breakfast and made my bed. Both are true, only 1 gives the order explicitly.

Are you aware that that in that verse that that word circumference is misspelt there and only there in the entire bible. Normally the Hebrew word is 3 letters long but the misspelt word is only 2 letters long. The scribes would write in the side they believe it to be the 3 letter word "circumference" but they never corrected the "mistake".

As it turns out, if you use the code of a=1 b=2 c=2, for the Hebrew language you get a value of:
3 letter = 111
2 letter = 106.

111 / 106 = 1.0471698113207547169811320754717 notice something with that value? it's 1/3rd of Pi to 4 decimal places
111 / 106 * 3 = 3.1415094339622641509433962264151 which gave an accuracy to 1/15000 of an inch.
pi == 3.1415926535897932384626433832795

Just thought I should mention that next time you feel like trying to boast about something.

Hello LiquidRage, Sorry for the late reply... Yes the above is a good statement of my beliefs. As referring to your link, it states several cases, let me go other each one as much as I can.

That is a interesting point. What is information. The problem here is that data needs to be interpreted. This is a vagueness about this as what constitute info and data. E.g. you would say Mozart's music is designed even if you heard it being played by a learner on a flute that got every 10th note wrong.
1. 1 increased genetic variety in a population i.e. Lenski
In this example they are trying to show how mutations have made the bacteria evolved.
The problem here is that it is devolution. That is a functioning gene got stuck on.
Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?
1.2 increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
The argument here is gene duplication is the technique used to gain "information" in DNA so things can evolve. The theory goes on the lines of "part/whole of a gene/chromosome" which is then free to mutate into something useful while the other picks up the stack.
I have just been reading up on this so I can reply to you (hence my delay in replying (that and work and doing stuff with the wife)), A creationist view here (I assume ID as well) is gene duplication does happen, it's proven many times over. But gene duplication is usually very bad in humans and animals. An example of gene duplication is Down’s syndrome. (the reverse is Turner syndrome). The genes *tend* interact badly with each other and when done artificially in mice, they dont survive. *Tends mean that I read a case where the double up of a gene helped out a lemur to process food when the doubled gene mutated.

I thought I should point out that although genes/chromosomes can duplicate, it doesn't mean it's evolving. As a classic example from a site: Gene Duplication

What caught me by surprise is strangely it's seems to be very common and tolerated in plants, but when the plant does this it can suffer from a fitness cost like in mutations and natural selection.
I thought I should also point out this plant which will revert it's DNA if it needs too.

1.3 novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
Sorry but I was having a hard time searching for Knox. I would like a last name so I could know what they are talking about.


1.4 novel genetically-regulated abilities
Just skimming by this. Nylon Bacteria
2. Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway
Sorry my eyes glazed over while looking into this. I am not a chemist :-( Rough shot at the subject, Unless they can show the same bacteria having 2 halves and another generation having it fused, they are just guessing about it's "evolution" pass. Also an alternate solution was it was a whole and a mutation split them into 2, another mutation can join them up. again sorry I couldn't be bother looking too deeply into this.

Zhang lemurs. Gene Duplication
It can happen. The double up actually helped.

Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar
The doubling up didn't kill the yeast, and a beneficial effect like the Zhang's lemurs. Again, they are still Yeast like how Epulopiscium fishelsoni are still bacteria with 85000 copies of a gene.


3. Noise (i.e. mutations) creates cancers, tumors, and all kind of sicknesses. If you dont believe me, step infront of a fukushima power plant. If you start to glow green like the hulk, I am wrong. If you get brain cancer, I win. (I'll be sad for you :-P )
Also noise builds up over time so it can't be selected against. good read if you want to see the other side of things.


4. Dear God, not the computer simulations argument again. This is BS. (I am a programmer, argument to my authority here.)


Summery: Gene duplication does happen, sometimes can help, usually bad in animals with pair chromosomes. Usually *good for plants. It still doesn't give evolution it's goo to you as it's usually hostile to the host. (if they even get to survive) For doubling up of a feature it can be great, e.g. lemurs or yeast.

Still it's mutations that causes the "evolution", even in the duplicated gene. (e.g. the lemor in RNASE1B)

The doubling up of genes does not give lizards the ability to grow wings. It doesn't give control/regulatory/communications/IC structures etc.. it can double up a already existing feature (which can be good), or fowl up other stuff (bad).
So the above statement of mutations not adding information should say "complex" information. Like in the case of "Epulopiscium fishelsoni", at 85000x a gene is duplicated and 25x the size of a human dna and it's still a bacteria.

I hope my argument shows support to justify to you the above statement still holds on correct.


Cheers
I hate Slashdot's formatting.

I didn't mean to state that you trying to deceive, you seem genuine in your comments. please forgive me if I offended you, my words are not meant to insult you or put you down.

I read that line above and though you are using the term evolution in two different ways. You used evolution as in "Natural Selection" in an attempt to prove "Goo to You" evolution. Many people do this. I was just trying to show that this line alone isn't showing evolution, just features of natural selection. ID doesn't have anything against Natural Selection. It is required to explain all the different variations of life on earth. ID uses the first line to explain the world and your right that ID and creationists belief that mutations dont lead to a new "kind".

I am a devils advocate and serious. I hate when a belief is passed off as science and then used to bash other opinions. So I am just pointing out the flaws in the science of evolution. Trying to show that the beliefs in it makes it a religion in itself. You may disagree with me, that is fine. I just want to raise the point that there are other serious opinions in logic other than we are just all mistakes of the universe. Most evolutions never hear an informed opposing view. Cheers.

I disagree. Please to any error in my statements?

*I agree. The degree of change is limited to the variation in the species. Selection only picks out what is already there. Sometimes the change can be great, e.g. Great Dane vs chiwawa, but they are still both dogs.

You are correct, But evolution requires a change agent and Natural Selection does not cut the mustard. In all it's flavors, e.g. specification with a separated population, (like flys in hawaii) are still just Natural Selection which only picks from pre existing information. Selection by definition filters information so the geane pool of the creature is lesser more specified. (thus less able to adapt later on) The only change agent in town now for "goo to you" is mutations.

I agree, but if your terms are not well defined, then the layman will get things mixed up. Hence I try to explain the difference between Natural Selection (Survival of the fittest & proven), to Evolution (as in "goo to you", *not proven (*not counting devolution which ID and Creations agree with.)) Tell me, if someone came up to you in the street and ask what was evolution, would you say the theory of creatures changing? or the theory that everything came from a single cell? Because if you said evolution is the theory of creatures changing, that would make me an evolutionist. :-O

I would have to disagree with you here. With ID, they show examples of complex structures requiring all components to be working for it to exist and without there being any in-between forms for them to work therefore evidence of a designer. With evolution they require everything to happen by chance but Natural selection will remove the unfit half baked structures long before they would be established. Please show me evidence in a lab for evolution that is repeatable. The best example I know about is when for 30 years over 30,000 generations of bacteria were bread and through a 3 point mutation, they gain the ability to process citrus acid as a food source. The problem here is that that doesnt prove evolution as it actually broke a geane were they could already process citrus acid as food in an oxygen free environment. So NS favorited the defect but the gene is now stuck "on" making it less fit compared to the wild cussons. You might disagree with the evidence that ID has but it still there. Saying it isn't science, well how about evolution? it dogmatically chooses a materialist reason over logical reasons. Tell me, is you see a watch in the beach, would you say it's just wind and rain that caused the silicon and glass to take shape or would you say some kid dropped it there? saying something is design is a logical conclusion, rejecting a conclusion before you hear the evidence on the basis of a belief (materialism) would make you as bad the creationists :-)

Its a new account. My other account is Obble. slashdot really doesn't like my opinions hence I get -1 troll status at first post and therefore censored. I am very surprised to have 2 in rating as I usually just get down voted into oblivion by people with other more common strong world views.

IMO, I would have to disagree with what you are saying. You are setting up a straw man argument for ID. ID (and creationists) believe in Natural Selection, and Mutations. Theses are verifiable, testable and been proven over 100s of years. Even Natural Selection was talked about before Darwin...

What ID & creationists argue against what is being passed off as science, namely the "goo to you via the zoo" Grant theory of evolution. NS works by filtering out what is already in the population, this is not a creative effect but only a selective effect. Mutations works against the host vastly more often than they benfit. Scientific Test: If you argue mutations are good, please step inside a necular reactor :-P (Actually there are some rare cases of mutations being good to the host but every instances it because of something breaking, which doesn't show Goo to you) But for Evolution, you use a bait and switch to lure in the layman by saying, see here these things change/evolved over time, and fitter things survive, therefor things evolved from mud in the ground. :-P The fallacy here is you are using 2 different terms for evolution to trick the layman, and I think it's a very cleaver trick imo. So please dont call the kettle black, when you own views you declare out loud to everyone have there own "faith" based position.